For each SCOTUS judge, a certain number of Senators supported their nomination. Each senator was elected because he received a certain number of votes. So if we add up all the votes for the Senators who approved the nomination, and compare that to all the votes for the Senators who disapproved of the nomination, what do we get for each currently sitting SCOTUS? Has anybody done this calculation?

Update

Ian Samuel wrote an article in the Guardian where he cites the sort of figures I am interested in, for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (5th paragraph from the end). His source for Gorsuch is an article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review by Kevin J. McMahon from Trinity College (volume 93, issue 2, p 343); McMahon provides similar figures for Thomas, Kagan, and Alito as well. Clearly, I am not the only one interested in this data!

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

"The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center." – elliot svensson, Giter, Thomas, Drunk Cynic, Tal

This seem rather meaningless, someone voting for a senator probably doesn't know what supreme court pick may come during that term or how a senator will vote on them.
– JJJNov 8 at 23:32

2

This is a bad-faith argument in several ways. Counting such a vote is irrelevant, and considering whether to change the constitution toward popular voting according to this ill-advised count is ill-advised. Vote to close.
– elliot svenssonNov 9 at 0:12

1

Certainly the calculation could be done with readily-available public information -- senate votes, senate election results, and state populations are all public. If you are interested, I suggest you do it yourself.
– ThomasNov 9 at 1:02

1

I dont see how this information could be useful other than to make a poorly formed argument against whichever justices happen to be "indirectly" supported by the fewest votes. Sure, they will most likely be conservative justices. That is simply the reality of disproportionate rural representation in the Senate.
– TalNov 9 at 3:28

2

This question shouldn't be closed. This is an easy to answer question and gets at the heart of political life in the United States. The growing polarization is a result of a system that doesn't work for its citizens. If, for example, it can be demonstrated that SCOTUS judges are being giving life long seats on the court but literally are representing a minority of citizens, that should be addressed. Because it's essentially a question of legitimacy and legitimacy is extremely important. Governments cannot work without it. This is NOT a bad faith question. Those blocking the question though...
– ShinEmperorNov 13 at 12:46